Did God have a mother?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
your example has nothing to do with our discussion. a pizza is made up of pizza slices, each being pizza. in that case pizza is not a set of slices but rather a whole object which you divide in an arbitrary number of subparts.


if you want to make the pizza as an example, you must state it differently.
pizza is food. if you eat pizza you eat food. if you eat food you don't necessarily eat pizza. pizza is like food. food is not like pizza.

There is nothing wrong with my example, but we can use your example. You are confusing subsets with similarity. When you say "if you eat pizza you eat food. if you eat food you don't necessarily eat pizza" you are correct. But you are saying that pizza is a subset of food, and food is not a subset of pizza. You are not making a statement about their similarity.

Similarity is symmetrical. If A is similar to B, then B must be similar to A. Pizza is like food in one main respect: it can be eaten. Food is like pizza in the exact same respect: it can be eaten.

I think if we were discussing this about any other topic you would probably agree with me. But you place a special value on god and don't want to compare god to humans, and this is clouding your judgment here.

Originally posted by redbarons
snore

In other words, arms waving in the air singing Cumbya and shouting 'I believes,I believes it ALL'.

Originally posted by PatNovak
There is nothing wrong with my example, but we can use your example. You are confusing subsets with similarity. When you say "if you eat pizza you eat food. if you eat food you don't necessarily eat pizza" you are correct. But you are saying that pizza is a subset of food, and food is not a subset of pizza. You are not making a statement about their similar ...[text shortened]... l value on god and don't want to compare god to humans, and this is clouding your judgment here.

"There is nothing wrong with my example"
except that it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. that is why i took issue.

You are confusing subsets with similarity.
i am not saying all subsets must be similar to the whole set if that is what you are complaining.

But you are saying that pizza is a subset of food, and food is not a subset of pizza.
it is correct, but i did not say the second part. i don't need that for my argument. what i said is that while pizza is like food, food is not like pizza (unless you dilute an already broad term even further).


let's take another example. H2CO3 is soda. it is also an acid. it has acid like properties. to say that acids are like H2CO3 is to compare all the powerfull acids (H2SO4, HCl, HF, HNO3) that could chew your arm off to the pansie of
that group.

did you also see that i continue to use "A-like qualities" and deliberately avoid "B is like A"?


sonhouse argument goes "food is like pizza, this is ridiculous, therefore food doesn't exist". that is what i am objecting to. food is so much more than pizza. you reduce to absurd so of course you can draw any conclusion you want.

Originally posted by redbarons
Suzianne is the only woman pious enough to be gods mother.

Not exactly.

Please don't pretend that you know me.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I didn't give up on the Mysoginistic and genocidal stuff at all. Are you saying it's ok for a god to have those attributes?

How can you say just what attributes a god would have?

All I am saying is we project our OWN attributes to a cleverly designed man made god for the express purpose of controlling populations.

We can NEVER know the true attrib ...[text shortened]... ly and then collide with the culture across the river that happens to have a different book.....

you can't go on a rant about all the issues wrong with something in a forum debate.

it is hard enough to stay on topic while discussing one thing.

that is if you wish to have a discussion, and you aren't just baiting the theists.

your proposed topic was: because god is like humans and that is ridiculous, god must be a figment of imagination. is this what you proposed in the OP? would you like to amend it, if i misunderstood?


so would you like to have a discussion ? or you are just baiting theists?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
pizza is like food, food is not like pizza

This statement is so obviously incorrect and impossible that I really can't believe you continue to defend such nonsense. This is like saying Bill is like Joe, but Joe is nothing like Bill. I think your inability to understand elementary school level logic goes a long way in explaining why you are a theist.

Originally posted by PatNovak
This statement is so obviously incorrect and impossible that I really can't believe you continue to defend such nonsense. This is like saying Bill is like Joe, but Joe is nothing like Bill. I think your inability to understand elementary school level logic goes a long way in explaining why you are a theist.

Really? All food is like pizza to you? Does your entire diet come from Pizza Hut?

The difference is like saying "Joe is a person, but not all people are like Joe." Bill doesn't really enter into it. I think your inability to understand elementary school level logic goes a long way in explaining why you are NOT a theist.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Really? All food is like pizza to you? Does your entire diet come from Pizza Hut?

The difference is like saying "Joe is a person, but not all people are like Joe." Bill doesn't really enter into it. I think your inability to understand elementary school level logic goes a long way in explaining why you are NOT a theist.

You're obviously not paying careful attention to the discussion. PatNovak has already made it clear that he thinks claims like "pizza is like food" etc are notionally confused, inasmuch as they confuse subset and similarity claims.

And, then, even if we feed Zahlanzi's notionally confused usage in this way, we at least need to get the logic right. Zahlanzi is the one who apparently doesn't understand this, not PatNovak.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You're obviously not paying careful attention to the discussion. PatNovak has already made it clear that he thinks claims like "pizza is like food" etc are notionally confused, inasmuch as they confuse subset and similarity claims.

Pardon me, then, for jumping in once the "logic" gets so deep that he starts tripping himself up in it.

For years, "logic" also said that bumblebees should not fly. Yet still, they do. What use is "logic" like that?


Edit: And yes, of course, those who think their logic is superior can claim the inferiority of the others' logic all day. Merely declaring it so does not make it so.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Not exactly.

Please don't pretend that you know me.

you know vince

Originally posted by Suzianne
Pardon me, then, for jumping in once the "logic" gets so deep that he starts tripping himself up in it.

For years, "logic" also said that bumblebees should not fly. Yet still, they do. What use is "logic" like that?


Edit: And yes, of course, those who think their logic is superior can claim the inferiority of the others' logic all day. Merely declaring it so does not make it so.

😞

Originally posted by Suzianne
Pardon me, then, for jumping in once the "logic" gets so deep that he starts tripping himself up in it.

For years, "logic" also said that bumblebees should not fly. Yet still, they do. What use is "logic" like that?


Edit: And yes, of course, those who think their logic is superior can claim the inferiority of the others' logic all day. Merely declaring it so does not make it so.

For years, "logic" also said that bumblebees should not fly. Yet still, they do. What use is "logic" like that?

By "logic" you mean some scientifically unenlightened research. Indeed, what use is scientifically unenlightened research like that?

But I am talking about actual logic, as it regards how propositions relate. The logic at issue here is very basic. The claim that A is like B here reports that A and B share some set of properties. But that is clearly a symmetric relation, so "A is like B" also entails "B is like A", in the same respect. This was the original point of confusion, and I'm afraid the confusion all belongs to Zahlanzi (not only was Zahlanzi confused regarding this symmetry; but he/she has also gone on to conflate similarity and subset claims).

When you jumped in, all you managed to do was demonstrate that you haven't actually followed the conversation. I recall that you have done this several times in the past, too. Oh well....

Originally posted by LemonJello

For years, "logic" also said that bumblebees should not fly. Yet still, they do. What use is "logic" like that?

By "logic" you mean some scientifically unenlightened research. Indeed, what use is scientifically unenlightened research like that?

But I am talking about actual logic, as it regards how propositions relate. The logic ...[text shortened]... the conversation. I recall that you have done this several times in the past, too. Oh well....

I love bees and beer and food

Originally posted by LemonJello

For years, "logic" also said that bumblebees should not fly. Yet still, they do. What use is "logic" like that?

By "logic" you mean some scientifically unenlightened research. Indeed, what use is scientifically unenlightened research like that?

But I am talking about actual logic, as it regards how propositions relate. The logic ...[text shortened]... the conversation. I recall that you have done this several times in the past, too. Oh well....

A is not like B because by definition they are two different letters in the alphabet of a language.

Originally posted by Suzianne

For years, "logic" also said that bumblebees should not fly.

Substantiate this piece of urban myth!! 😠